Page:Margaret Hamilton of Rockhall v Lord Lyon King of Arms.pdf/42

 offensive to the public or to third parties. No fraud has been perpetrated. The Agreement ensured recognition for all purchasers of barony titles regardless of whether or not they had used the services of the firm. The Agreement does not improperly favour the firm nor does it create a market which is prejudicial or offensive to the public in any way.

[74] The purchasers of barony titles are generally wealthy individuals who thereafter take an interest in their barony. Many such individuals have invested considerable sums of money in their baronies to the benefit of local people and the wider community. Accordingly, there was nothing improper in one of the defender's predecessors in office entering into the Agreement, upon the advice of senior counsel, and thereafter acting in accordance with its terms. The defender's averments in Answer 9, averring that the Agreement is contra bonos mores, ought not be admitted to probation as they are wholly irrelevant.

Discussion

Preliminary observations

[75] The pursuer's reliance on paragraph 4 of the Agreement is central to her claim, particularly her reading of that paragraph in support of her primary position as requiring the Lord Lyon in all time coming to use the phrase "Baron of the [barony of]" in the recognition of "other persons" as the holders of the dignity of an extant barony title. While questions of jurisdiction or the pursuer's title and interest might be logically prior issues, a determination against the pursuer on those issues (and which was essentially argued to be a deficiency on the pleadings) would leave unresolved what is the critical issue at the heart of the dispute between the parties. Indeed, as I understand it, the pursuer perils her case on